Contextualising Bureaucratic Corruption in the Botswana Public Service K Mudeme* School of Public Management and Administration University of Pretoria N Holtzhausen School of Public Management and Administration University of Pretoria ABSTRACT This article aims to contextualise the status of bureaucratic corruption as well as certain transparency and accountability mechanisms adopted by the Botswana public service to curb corruption. The article is structured as follows: first, the article provides a brief introductory background of Botswana in terms of the context of its accountability, transparency and corruption reputation. This is followed by an overview of the statutory and regulatory framework and a conceptualisation of bureaucratic corruption in the Botswana public service. Specific aspects related to corruption in Botswana such as the level of corruption in ministries, the forms and causes of bureaucratic corruption and the most occurring offences; are highlighted. Transparency and accountability mechanisms in the Botswana public service discussed include performance management, financial reporting, records management, public procurement regulation, e-government and meritocratic recruitment. The methodology entails a desktop analysis of literature and official documents to conceptualise the area of investigation (Auriacombe 2007). The methodological approach included specific dimensions of unobtrusive research techniques. In general, unobtrusive research techniques study so- cial behaviour to eliminate bias and promote conceptual and contextual analysis. These techniques can be applied to both quantitative and qualita- tive research (Auriacombe 2007). 188 Administratio Publica | Vol 26 No 1 March 2018 INTRODUCTORY BACKGROUND Corruption undermines good governance and countries have invested large re- sources to inhibit the ‘curse’. Implementation of good governance practices such as transparency and accountability mechanisms in the public service is an at- tempt to prevent corruption. There are various types of corruption, such as, po- litical, economic, electoral and bureaucratic corruption. Botswana is perceived as one of the least corrupt countries in Africa and reports have suggested that corruption is the seventh most problematic issue when conducting business in the country. Furthermore, international organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Mo Ibrahim Index have ranked Botswana in first position for corruption control, transparency and accountability since 2006 to date. Moreover, Botswana is considered an African role model and benchmark for good governance practices in the public service. Despite Botswana being rated as a ‘clean’ country, corruption is on the increase in the country. The corrupt acts have not been reported, to retain a corrupt free image with which the country has long been associated. Moreover, Botswana is not as transparent and accountable as has been reported by OECD and the Mo Ibrahim African Governance Index. Botswana is a land-locked country located in Southern Africa and shares borders with South Africa and Zimbabwe. Botswana is sparsely populated with two million people. The governance system is a decentralised one based on the Westminster approach. The country upholds the rule of law and individual liber- ties (Throup 2011:5). Furthermore, the governance system accentuates institution- al development which has earned the country the title of accountable, transparent and least corrupt country on the African continent as illustrated in Table 1. The institutional structures limit the power of the elite and facilitate the establishment of sound administrative, political and economic institutions (Kruis 2013:2). The public service in Botswana is reported to be accountable and transpar- ent in all its activities. It was granted a 100% rating by the Mo Ibrahim Index of African Governance in 2006. Furthermore, the Mo Ibrahim Index of African Governance reflects that the government and its officials are not corrupt, as -il lustrated in Table 1. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Transparency and accountability are facilitated through the Constitution, 1966 and the Finance and Audit Act, 1997. The Constitution, adopted in 1965, lays down an institutional framework that includes the parliament as a representative, law-making, and oversight organ intended to ensure that the executive, led by Administratio Publica | Vol 26 No 1 March 2018 189 190 Table 1: Accountability, transparency and corruption: Botswana public service 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Overall 73.9 75.1 75.3 73.7 74.2 75.8 76.2 74.6 70.4 72.1 Public sector accountability 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 and transparency Administratio Publica Accountability of public officials 83.3 83.3 83.3 83.3 83.3 83.3 79.8 76.2 76.2 76.2 Corruption in government 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 and public officials | Vol 26 No 26 Vol 1 March 2018 Corruption and bureaucracy 71.4 85.7 85.7 71.4 85.7 85.7 85.7 85.7 76.2 76.2 Source: (Mo Ibrahim Index of African Governance) the President as the Head of State, delivers on its mandate. The Constitution of Botswana establishes three principal organs of the state, the executive, parlia- ment and judicature. The Constitution specifies the appointment and powers of principal public service offices and fundamental issues concerning public finance and its management (Sebudubudu 2014:5). The Constitution, 1966, provides for internal checks and balances and requires the government to be open, account- able and transparent. To ensure accountability and transparency the Constitution, 1966, established the Office of the Auditor General to conduct an annual audit of all public accounts (Republic of Botswana Constitution 1966). The Finance and Audit Act, 1997, ensures fiscal accountability and transpar- ency in the public service. The Act emphasises safeguarding the collection and custody of funds for better public funds management. Further, public funds are to be disbursed with proper legislation and the finance official must be responsible to the citizenry (Finance and Audit Act 1997). ● Section 6 emphasises that every public officer concerned with or responsible for the collection, custody, or disbursement of public moneys or the receipt, custody, issue or use of public supplies, shall comply with financial or other in- structions and any directions not inconsistent therewith which may from time to time be issued by the Permanent Secretary in respect of the procedure to be followed in such matters, and the accounting for the same. ● The responsibilities of the Auditor General are highlighted in Section 29, to ensure effective management of public funds. The section notes that in dis- charging his duties under section 124(2) and (3) of the Constitution, the Auditor-General shall satisfy himself: that all reasonable precautions have been taken to safeguard the collection and custody of public moneys and that the laws, instructions and directions relating thereto have been duly observed, the disbursement of public moneys has taken place under proper authority and for the purposes intended by such authority, all reasonable precautions have been taken to safeguard the receipt, custody, issue and proper use of public sup- plies, and that the instructions and directions relating thereto have been duly observed; and adequate instructions or directions exist for the guidance of of- ficers responsible for the collection, custody, issue and disbursement of public moneys or the receipt, custody, issue and disbursement of public supplies. Other legislation which promotes transparency and accountability in the pub- lic service of Botswana is the Public Procurement Act, 2002, which guides the procurement of goods and services by the public institutions, to facilitate trans- parency, accountability, fairness and equity. The Act emphasises that the board should ensure that all public procurement institutions take into account the princi- ples of open, fair and equitable treatment of all contractors, to achieve efficiency, accountability and transparency in the management of public procurement. The Administratio Publica | Vol 26 No 1 March 2018 191 legal and regulatory framework for procurement includes a provision for the set- ting up of an administrative review board tasked with resolving complaints lodged concerning a procuring institution contravening any legal provisions of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act (Quinot and Amusmith 2013:28). ● Section 7 addresses fair treatment and emphasises that where, for reasons of limitations of capacity, contractors registered in Botswana are unable to satisfy wholly or in part, the specific procurement requirements, they shall be offered an equal opportunity to participate in the bidding process of the beneficiary entity (in conjunction with firms in that country) and where applicable to offer such requirements from third sources. ● In Section 9 discrimination and underpricing is expounded. In the event of evidence demonstrating discrimination in any form against Botswana regis- tered contractors by private firms or public entities of any other country, either in that country or in a third country, in respect of procurement or disposal activities; or discrimination or underpricing or action to this effect by public or private entities of Botswana or public or private entities from another country, which limits competition and places locally registered firms at a disadvantage in the